Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
by the supreme court could result in the roe v. wade of guy rights. joining me now is political strategist steve elmendorf and chris geithner, senior political reporter for buzz feed. steve, i want to go to you first on this. there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of back and forth whether it's a good thing for marriage equality for the supreme court to take up these issues. some folks think better to leave it at the state level. there has been a lot of progress there. are you bullish or bearish on this? >> i'm bullish. i think the supreme court is going to do the right thing. you know, it's hard to predict, but i think the country has been moving so fast in the right direction. the court is not immune to public opinion. the court is not immune to the wind blowing through the country. and it's so clear where we're moving and the progress we've made in the last five years has been amazing. and i think the court is going to do the right thing. >> chris, let's talk a little bit about public opinion. because we have some polling that shows a breathtaking change of public opinion on this. in 20
and roe versus wade. he reached out in lawrence versus texas and grutter v. bollinger. those who don't want them to reach out in this case do want them to reach out anytime it helps their cause. maybe they even reached out in allen's case. my point is the court shouldn't just make things up. but they are, to a large extent, a policymaking body. that is what they do. they take cases and they decide broader principles. here we have a very serious problem that justifies a little stretching, not in my opinion to ban racial preferences, and went to socioeconomic components. every other institution in american society has failed to come to grips with this problem. the university systematically misleads applicants over how it works. no major politician has had a case of affirmative action more than 20 years -- excuse me, not 20, but 16 years. we are going to have racial preferences for the next hundred years or more unless the supreme court does something to slow down. >> a nonpolitical ranch of a policymaking body. say it ain't so. [applause] >> comments? >> i would like to talk about what
roe v. wade and all of that. but this is happening at record pace, more so than i think any civil rights battle. somebody made the point it was because -- more and more people obviously have learned that they know somebody gay, whereas obviously they were saying that the civil rights movement you didn't suddenly discover someone is black. >> right. >> stephanie: but i think as you say they do look at politics, look at the same polling we have, and look at the arc of history, and say a kennedy has the chance to do the brown versus board of education of our time. >> sure. we don't know who voted to take up the proposition 8 case, right? at least four justices have to be supportive of the coming on board. could it have been for liberal justices thinking that kennedy, the presumed swing vote might be with them or those opposed to marriage equality presuming that kennedy might be with them. but i think that the court despite being above the fray, as it were it interacted with the political realities and the world, so it is standoffish but it cannot help being effec
all, reverse roe v. wade. the commerce clause was not part of that agenda. again, any story i tell and "the oath," the idea that an individual mandate was unconstitutional was invented out of thin air essentially fixed months before the law was passed. the individual mandate had been pioneered by the conservative heritage foundation and the late 80s. decades it had been discussed and no one had ever suggested it was unconstitutional. you might think. someone might've noticed this really unconstitutional. it is an example i think and i believe robert staines of the kind of political frenzy. a desire of the part of republicans to defeat the saw at any cost, any price and roberts said this is a diversion from what we need to do as conservatives. roberts did not suddenly last year discoveries and are moderate. he is not a moderate. he will not suddenly start siding with four liberals. but in this case, he preserved his plays and he preserved the courts place as a relatively neutral arbiter and expanded his own power and reputation and enormous lake, which he will use sooner rather than
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)